Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 212

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Selection of Tumor-binding Ligands in Cancer Patients with Phage Display Libraries

Krag, David N., Shukla, Girja S., Shen, Guang-Ping, Pero, Stephanie, Ashikaga, Taka, Fuller, Susan, Weaver, Donald L., Burdette-Radoux, Susan, Thomas, Christian·2006·Cancer Research

Abstract

Phage display has been used extensively in vitro and in animal models to generate ligands and to identify cancer-relevant targets. We report here the use of phage-display libraries in cancer patients to identify tumor-targeting ligands. Eight patients with stage IV cancer, including breast, melanoma, and pancreas, had phage-displayed random peptide or scFv library (1.6 × 108-1 × 1011 transducing units/kg) administered i.v.; tumors were excised after 30 minutes; and tumor-homing phage were recovered. In three patients, repeat panning was possible using phage recovered and amplified from that same patient's tumor. No serious side effects, including allergic reactions, were observed with up to three infusions. Patients developed antiphage antibodies that reached a submaximal level within the 10-day protocol window for serial phage administration. Tumor phage were recoverable from all the patients. Using a filter-based ELISA, several clones from a subset of the patients were identified that bound to a tumor from the same patient in which clones were recovered. The clone-binding to tumor was confirmed by immunostaining, bioassay, and real-time PCR–based methods. Binding studies with noncancer and cancer cell lines of the same histology showed specificity of the tumor-binding clones. Analysis of insert sequences of tumor-homing peptide clones showed several motifs, indicating nonrandom accumulation of clones in human tumors. This is the first reported series of cancer patients to receive phage library for serial panning of tumor targeting ligands. The lack of toxicity and the ability to recover clones with favorable characteristics are a first step for further research with this technology in cancer patients. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(15): 7724-33)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/0008-5472.can-05-4441

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 212

Metadata

Authors
Krag, D. N., Shukla, G. S., Shen, G.-P., Pero, S., Ashikaga, T., Fuller, S., Weaver, D. L., Burdette-Radoux, S., & Thomas, C.
Venue
Cancer Research
Published
2006-08-01
Volume
66
Issue
15
Pages
7724-7733
ISSN
  • 0008-5472 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-7445
OpenAlex
W2168957339
Cited by
212
References
1
FWCI
9.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Selection of Tumor-binding Ligands in Cancer Patients with Phage Display Libraries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1158/0008-5472.can-05-4441
The paper
Krag, D. N., Shukla, G. S., Shen, G.-P., Pero, S., Ashikaga, T., Fuller, S., Weaver, D. L., Burdette-Radoux, S., & Thomas, C. (2006). Selection of Tumor-binding Ligands in Cancer Patients with Phage Display Libraries. Cancer Research. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-05-4441

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.